RussianSensation
Elite Member
- Sep 5, 2003
- 19,458
- 765
- 126
At least DEMD has graphics to match. Dishonored 2 is the least technically impressive big budget AAA FPS game released in the last 2 years. I cannot think of any other game of this genre and AAA level that has such poor horrible performance vs. graphics trade-off. Fallout 4 comes close but at least it's a massive open world game and it still runs better. Dishonored 2 is very similar to Mafia 3 levels of fail here.
At least Mafia 3 got a patch that increased performance 30-50%!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3W7O0g2ro2I
The performance vs. graphics trade-offs in Dishonored look much worse in the context of console ports such as COD: IW and Titanfall 2, whose graphics and optimization absolutely wipe the floor with this title.
When Infinite Warfare runs hits 60 fps upscaled 4K and runs like butter on a PS4 with 2.1Ghz 8-core Jaguar CPU and roughly RX 470 8GB spec and this game swings between 40-50 fps at 1080p on a Fury X and an i7 6700K/i7 5960X, it's a sure sign the developers spent almost no time testing this game/engine across various hardware in the last 3 years before release (or AMD was simply not allowed to have access to the title to optimize for it before release due to Dishonored being associated with NV). Either that, or the game was developed strictly on the latest NV GPUs. This is like a flashback of Project CARS where everything except GTX970/980 ran horribly, even last generation's 780/780Ti cards. Fallout 4 -- yet another title that ran very poorly on release on AMD hardware and it took many patches for it to get sorted.
It's very unfortunate because Dishonored 2 itself in artistic form looks good, but all the work put in by the artists, designers, writers, etc. is now overshadowed by a horrendously unoptimized game/engine. The blocked out HBAO+ on AMD cards is reminiscent of the Crew -- yet another purely NV-biased title. Lack of CF/SLI support is also unfortunate since even if the game was not optimized well, at least owners of dual HD7970/R9 290/290Xs/Furies would have been able to take advantage of this bad situation.
Finally gamers are voting with their wallets which is good to see since many are getting tired of throwing $ on broken games:
"Dishonored 2 launch sales down 38% on Dishonored"
They should have delayed this game at least 6 months but now the franchise's future is in question if it is already trailing the 1st Dishonored's sales by almost 40%. I guess when a game is released under the Bethesda umbrella, we should 99% expect it to look outdated and run extremely poorly at the same time. Fallout 4 was a nice reminder not long ago. When Elder Scrolls 6 comes out in 2018-2020, I wouldn't be surprised if its graphics will be barely on par with 2013 Crysis 3 and yet it'll wipe the floor with GP102 1080Ti/2080Ti.
One would think that after Assassin's Creed Unity and Batman AK, that every single developer launching AAA PC games would be wise to delay their game by 6-12 months should it require more polish, but no, let's just release a broken game and then once the reputation is tarnished on launch week, it's VERY hard to reverse the negative sales trend.
And where is all this amazing looking tessellation? All I see are flat washed out textures everywhere.
GameGPU readership has thus far rated the game's optimization as 1/5 and graphics as 2/5.
http://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/dishonored-2-test-gpu
Ironically Wolfenstein New Order and expansation Old Blood ran beautiful on AMD cards, and that game was based on iD Tech 5 engine. We are talking about R9 280X hitting 60 fps averages with VHQ at 1440p!
Doom ran beautifully on AMD cards.
RX 470, 480 and R9 390 ran Doom flawlessly even at 1440p.
Even under OpenGL, R9 290X managed close to 60 fps in Doom at 1440p
It's getting really bad. You know when Infinite Warfare looks A LOT better and runs better that the PC gaming industry is going through some tough times. It's still funny to me how some were telling us during 2012-2013 that GTX680 2GB would last through the entire PS4/XB1 console generation and provide better gaming experience too. We are already at a point where it takes an i3 6100 + GTX960 4GB to just match the graphics of Xbox One S/original PS4. However, some games have serious issues even on an i3 6100 where the CPU requirements go up to an i5 6400. With PS4 Pro and Xbox Scorpio providing upscaled 4K gameplay, by the time this generation is over even an i5 6500 and a GTX1060 will be barely enough to keep up with $400 consoles.
It's a pretty scary though that every new generation of GPU hardware is seemingly wiped out by corresponding lack of optimization of future PC titles/ports. I know that many want to jump over to 4K PC gaming, but the level of optimization for many modern AAA PC titles is such that nothing less than $700 GPUs (sometimes in pairs) will do as we should expect 2017-2019 games to be even more GPU demanding.
This generation has reinforced the idea that ANY single GPU released in the first year of a brand new console generation will not be sufficient for the duration of that console generation. We can see it now as GTX680 and HD7970Ghz are basically end of the line in 2016. I'd say RX 470/RX 480 and GTX1060/GTX980 are the bare minimum for 1080p HQ gaming on the PC for 2017-2019 before next gen of consoles. GTX970 is pretty much done for due to its 3.5GB of VRAM.
Last edited:
Jaydip
Diamond Member
- Mar 29, 2010
- 3,691
- 21
- 81
So you mean when the game runs good on AMD cards only then the game is a worthwhile purchase for you? because that graph tells me the game ran like dog on NV cards. You said the same thing about Fallout 4 and it was a bestseller so...
I dont know game runs pretty good at rx480.AMD is just cpu bottleneck in some scenes with their redacted dx11 driver.You can see it in the video.
look at this
https://youtu.be/X_lrY-3aiME?t=96
in most scenes rx480=GTX1060.
Profanity is not allowed in the technical forums,
Markfw900
Anandtech Moderator
look at this
https://youtu.be/X_lrY-3aiME?t=96
in most scenes rx480=GTX1060.
Profanity is not allowed in the technical forums,
Markfw900
Anandtech Moderator
Last edited by a moderator:
1060 6GB 22% faster than 480 8GB @ ComputerBase (1080p). Fury X disappointing, barely outperforming Polaris at high resolutions, slower than 1060 6GB at 1080p/1440p. 1080 far ahead, almost twice the framerates of other cards.
www.computerbase.de/2016-11/dishonored-2-benchmark/3/#diagramm-dishonored-2-1920-1080
www.computerbase.de/2016-11/dishonored-2-benchmark/3/#diagramm-dishonored-2-1920-1080
Last edited:
Looking at these benchmarks and the those of recently released games, one could came up with the idea that amd is bad at rendering ugly graphics.
frozentundra123456
Lifer
- Aug 11, 2008
- 10,451
- 642
- 126
Jaydip
Diamond Member
- Mar 29, 2010
- 3,691
- 21
- 81
Pretty much this, it is getting sickening at this moment.
https://www.extremetech.com/gaming/...reviews-dishonored-2-significant-problems-pcs
yep must be an exclusive amd problem
yep must be an exclusive amd problem
It might explain why Bethesda has started to send out review copies one day before release now.
Even a GTX1080 can't hold framerates fine?? I am definitely screwed with a GTX960 then.
I can't believe that instead of a PCMR,its more like a Console Master Race with this title. It looks like Bethesda could not be bothered with the PC port of this title.
Well, from years of buying Elder Scrolls games, I always call Bethesda 'Bugsoft'. Don't think they have ever released one TES game without tons of bugs. But then I buy TES games for what user mods end up doing rather than what Bethesda did. I think of it as buying a nice work-in-progresss open-world game engine.
Of course, this isn't an in-house Bethesda game, so the fact that it is unpolished cannot be put on Bethesda programmers. But perhaps some project manager at Bethesda released it unfinished.
IMO they sat down and looked at the numbers, and concluded having the console version in stores for Black Friday was worth more than the lost PC gamers due to bad performance. I'm sure they'll patch it up over the next 6 months, but I'm also sure they didn't want to miss holiday buying season
AtenRa
Lifer
- Feb 2, 2009
- 14,003
- 3,362
- 136
Console game volume sales are higher than PC
Console game development is cheaper than PC due to only two different hardware (PS4 and XBone) , also faster
Its easy to understand why most of the games need more work on PC and why we get PC Games on Beta/unoptimized state at release.
It seems that Game studios prefer to release a PC game in such a poor state on the same time as the Console Game and then simple release game patches the next 2-3-6 months. They will make the bulk of the profit from Consoles so they dont care if the PC version doesnt do that well.
But releasing at the same time as the Consoles, they sell the PC version at the same 60$/Euro price. Those that want to buy the game on the first day/week they will and the Game Studio pockets the highest selling price early, not 3-6 months later if they would release the PC version later. Also, if they would release the PC version 6 months later, they would sell even less than they would on the Console release day because 6-months later the game will be forgotten simple because Marketing was at its highest the time of the Console release.
Ubisoft
EA
Console game development is cheaper than PC due to only two different hardware (PS4 and XBone) , also faster
Its easy to understand why most of the games need more work on PC and why we get PC Games on Beta/unoptimized state at release.
It seems that Game studios prefer to release a PC game in such a poor state on the same time as the Console Game and then simple release game patches the next 2-3-6 months. They will make the bulk of the profit from Consoles so they dont care if the PC version doesnt do that well.
But releasing at the same time as the Consoles, they sell the PC version at the same 60$/Euro price. Those that want to buy the game on the first day/week they will and the Game Studio pockets the highest selling price early, not 3-6 months later if they would release the PC version later. Also, if they would release the PC version 6 months later, they would sell even less than they would on the Console release day because 6-months later the game will be forgotten simple because Marketing was at its highest the time of the Console release.
Ubisoft
EA
Last edited:
Never said anything about tessellation. The improved primitive discard increases culling efficiency all around. And the resultant higher ALU utilization is why you see an RX480, a 5.5TFlop card, nearly match an 8.6 TFlop one.
RussianSensation
Elite Member
- Sep 5, 2003
- 19,458
- 765
- 126
The game barely looks better than Dishonored 1, an October 2012 title. Let's see how well that ran at 1600p.
WOW, 60 fps average on a HD7850/6950 and GTX480 (aka GTX750Ti). That's 2560x1600.
The worst processor got 76 fps averages!
In Dishonored 1, at 1920x1080, FX8150 got from 130 fps on a GTX690 (that's about GTX970/GTX980 level of performance) but in Dishonored 2 the same CPU achieves just 41 fps on a Fury X (that's 980Ti level of performance GPU) despite running at only 1280x720. That's more than a 3X decline in performance despite a 2.25X reduction in the number of rendered pixels. That's a joke for a game that barely looks better than Dishonored 1.
Are we looking at the same benchmarks? Dishonored 2 poorly on everything besides GTX1070/980Ti and above. Even then, it has major performance drops with a GTX1070/1080 at 1080p. Are you ignoring that point?
You want to single me out and ignore that the game is getting 57% Steam rating and GameGPU readers rated it 1/5 stars on the Optimization scale and 2/5 stars on the graphics quality scale?
My point was that id Tech 5 Wolfenstein and id Tech 6 Doom ran great on AMD's GCN and suddenly the combination of these game engines results in horrible perfomrance on the same AMD cards? Makes no logical sense. 780Ti, despite having an outdated GPU architecture that lacked compute and memory bandwidth, still managed 52-58 fps at 1440p in both Wolfenstein games. That's garbage to you? Please don't try to bring up the performance of GTX680/770 as everyone who follows these forums knows that in 2014 NV threw Kepler under the bus.
You also dismissed mine and other gamer's examples of various other AAA FPS games that came out in the last 2 years which all look and perform better than Dishonored 2.
Just because a game sells well, doesn't mean it's well optimized and/or has great graphics. ARK Survival Evolved is very popular and the game has been a train wreck as far as optimization and graphics were concerned. Are you going to publicly defend Fallout 4 which came out with outdated graphics and was riddled with bugs? In terms of technical assessment, Fallout 4 was a huge failure, and pissed off many gamers. Again, I am not discussing writing, gameplay, storyline, re-playability, etc. Strictly from a technical and optimization and stability point of view, Fallout 4 launched in broken state and it took what 6 months to get it up to speed. The funny part is Fallout 4 literally looked like a 2010-2012 game in certain parts and is horribly aged to me technically.
Oh really? Like an i7 2600K and GTX980 SLI dropping from 100 fps to 52 fps to 14 fps in a matter of seconds? (2:06-2:21 min)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2-pfEZ2CZY
Some comments from that^ YouTube video:
"Eric 1MSOFRESH: i7 6700K, GTX1080, average fps 60-70, but often drops to 40 fps. Graphics are 2007 year."
"Alexander Gordon - Batman Arkham Knight - 2"
"dariosfulful - GTX1060 60-70 fps, drops to 10 fps. Videocard from Recommended"
"Fallen angel - Marketing is moving forward while our PCs turn into turds from broken optimization, probably with hope that we will go ahead and purchase new videocards. Business it's just business."
No need for me to keep going. I have Asus Strix 1070 SLI but it doesn't mean I cannot have an opinion on lack of optimization of a particular PC game. When I see Infinite Warfare have graphics that blow Dishonored 2 completely out of the water on a technical level (not comparing artistic direction), and yet the game runs at upscaled 4K 60 fps on a $399 PS4 Pro with low-end PC hardware specs, it stands out as a sore thumb that another 2016 AAA FPS PC title cannot even maintain 60 fps locked on an i7 6700K + GTX1070/1080 at 1080p Ultra.
The graphics, animations, shadows look so horribly outdated, it's an eye-sore, like putting soap all over the screen and turning on the time machine 4-5 years ago. Crysis Warhead looked much better, a game that came out September 2008.
They had 4 years to develop the sequel which was enough time for the technical team to implement Vulkan and id Tech 6.
Jaydip
Diamond Member
- Mar 29, 2010
- 3,691
- 21
- 81
Alright lets see,
Dishonored looked like redactedwhen it launched and I highly doubt Dishonored 2 can look any worse and people who say otherwise don't need to walk but rather run to get their eye checked.I played Dishonored on launch and saw the graphics of the new sequel, they improved it a lot.So for reference here is the GPU bench for Thief
http://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/thief-test-gpu.html
780Ti/290X averages ~65 fps in 1600P SSAA low while in Dishonored 2 1080 gets the almost same fps . I chose Thief because it has the same game play like Dishonored 2 and believe me I played it and it was nothing extraordinary graphics wise.
No profanity allowed in the tech forums.
esquared
Anandtech Forum Director
Dishonored looked like redactedwhen it launched and I highly doubt Dishonored 2 can look any worse and people who say otherwise don't need to walk but rather run to get their eye checked.I played Dishonored on launch and saw the graphics of the new sequel, they improved it a lot.So for reference here is the GPU bench for Thief
http://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/thief-test-gpu.html
780Ti/290X averages ~65 fps in 1600P SSAA low while in Dishonored 2 1080 gets the almost same fps . I chose Thief because it has the same game play like Dishonored 2 and believe me I played it and it was nothing extraordinary graphics wise.
No profanity allowed in the tech forums.
esquared
Anandtech Forum Director
Last edited by a moderator:
You're missing the point. No-one minds "Crysis slow" if the visuals look spectacular. And no-one minds average looking games if that's both intentional art style (eg, Bioshock, The Witness, Portal, etc) if the game runs fast on low-end hardware. But when a game looks bad on Ultra and still runs bad on Low, there's a problem. RussianSensation is right. When a 6.5 year old i3-530 dual-core gets higher MIN fps than a Haswell i7-4770K does AVG fps, that's just flat out absurd. There is no radical AI breakthrough, huge sprawling "single-zone" levels or 64x multi-player, etc, to justify it for a simple single-player FPS, just a bunch of excuse making for a laughably inefficient game engine.
As for needing our eyes tested, look at the stone floor here. That's not "art style", it's just plain blurred and ugly, verging on indistinct mush. Even the characters standing on the street look abnormally fuzzy. Since you like Thief, I actually have less blurred and "clearer" looking stonework textures running on the 1998 original Dark Engine running +200fps on a potato with 1/20th of the VRAM, that's how absurd "the fps-per-texture-quality" gap has become on modern 2016 engines.
Dishonored 1 may not have been photo-realistic but the "bleak watercolor oil painting" art style worked well for that game, and having replayed it recently I can say stuff at even far distances doesn't look anywhere near as fuzzy as D2's at short-medium. Not just talking about textures but also the general "sharpness" of things. Eg, being able to count the windows in distant buildings across Wrenhaven River at the very start of the D1 (left of where Emily wants to play hide & seek) vs Dishonored 2's shots of just looking down onto the street below look unintentionally blurred (like it's being rendered at 1080p, then downscaled to 720p then re-upscaled to 1080p again internally due to the "adaptive resolution" thing gone wrong). I don't know if that's what's happening inside the engine or if it's just an extremely lame DoF effect, but the visuals are wildly out of proportion to the VRAM / GPU requirements vs the original.
In short, Dishonored 1 felt like "it looked exactly as its designers planned" and was aesthetically pleasing even though it "technically" looked no better than some early 2007-2010 Bioshock's. Eg, the wall textures were low res but the "mosaicy" color palette broke up perceived "ugliness". Many of Dishonored 2's walls supposedly using "the same art style" have instead become "wall of uniform slate grey" that have taken a lot of color variation out of the watercolor effect, and as a result the textures just look ugly for it. Personally I don't find the art style even looks "water-colory" anymore in the same way resulting in it being less aesthetically pleasing even if it is supposedly "technically" superior.
Keysplayr
Elite Member
- Jan 16, 2003
- 21,211
- 50
- 91
This is nothing new. Plays great on AMD? Great and beautiful game. Plays Great on Nvidia, the graphics suck and equals games 10 years old.
They think we don't notice. I don't know how, but they do.
Jaydip
Diamond Member
- Mar 29, 2010
- 3,691
- 21
- 81
Did you personally took that screenshot? now a days it is hard to trust the screenshots found on the interwebs.I did like Thief but was not fond of it's graphics. The problem with Dishonored was it's broken AA implementation, the shader aa implementation made the game very blurry in places. I chose thief because they have similar game play and had almost the same GPU taxes.
Thanks for posting how NOT to release PC games. Its funny that Blizzard has been 100% PC just a few years ago and it has been doing amazingly well.Console game volume sales are higher than PC
Console game development is cheaper than PC due to only two different hardware (PS4 and XBone) , also faster
Its easy to understand why most of the games need more work on PC and why we get PC Games on Beta/unoptimized state at release.
It seems that Game studios prefer to release a PC game in such a poor state on the same time as the Console Game and then simple release game patches the next 2-3-6 months. They will make the bulk of the profit from Consoles so they dont care if the PC version doesnt do that well.
But releasing at the same time as the Consoles, they sell the PC version at the same 60$/Euro price. Those that want to buy the game on the first day/week they will and the Game Studio pockets the highest selling price early, not 3-6 months later if they would release the PC version later. Also, if they would release the PC version 6 months later, they would sell even less than they would on the Console release day because 6-months later the game will be forgotten simple because Marketing was at its highest the time of the Console release.
Ubisoft
EA
Its amazing how Valve is doing amazingly well and with just 2 games mind you Dota 2 and CS:GO.
Maybe, just maybe if developers release unfinished broken games on PC and do it over and over, PC gamers would stop buying PC games from said companies?
Lets see how poor the Witcher 3 did then, oh wait it was the top selling game. Gee when you release a solid PC games you get top sales, what kind of magic is that?
This game does not run great on nVidia. It doesn't run great for anyone.
tech 6 wasn't around until at least 2014, and they were still reworking the renderer in 2015.
Keysplayr
Elite Member
- Jan 16, 2003
- 21,211
- 50
- 91
The reason why it makes no logical sense is because this game is using a completely different engine. The game uses the Void engine, which is somewhat based on ID Tech 5, but they changed a lot of stuff. I think about 70% of the code from the base engine was removed and replaced, so in the end, using the ID Tech 5 as a base of comparison is rather silly from that respective.
So they should have just dumped all of their work on the Void engine then? It's not unusual for brand new engines to have teething issues.. And as it's been said repeatedly, the game doesn't run particularly well on NVidia hardware either.
Dude. Seriously? Have you read the reviews for this game, or any of the reports? It runs like crap for EVERYONE on EVERY configuration. Frame rate drops, hitching, extremely low performance for the visuals. Read the intro here for example: http://www.pcgamer.com/dishonored-2-review-in-progress/. See also: http://www.pcgamer.com/why-dishonored-2-is-running-so-poorly/.
I'm gonna go ahead and take PCGamer's opinion that the game has technical issues over your 3 word dismissal
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 19K
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter